Harnessing Vernacular Knowledge for Contemporary Sustainable Design through a Collaborative Digital Platform

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall comments:

This paper introduces the Heritage for People Platform, a collaborative digital tool that promotes knowledge networks on traditional architecture, artisans and sustainability. As part of the VerSus+ / Heritage for People project, the platform provides a user-friendly interface for professionals, researchers, artisans and citizens to share, disseminate and apply tangible and intangible knowledge of traditional architecture by mapping traditional architectural solutions and associated sustainable strategies. The platform employs a case-based reasoning methodology that indexes cases by attributes such as geographic location, material use, and type of intervention, supporting in-depth research and cross-disciplinary comparisons. User studies and iterative testing have ensured an intuitive, efficient and satisfying user experience. This study could provide a novel methodology and tool to facilitate the dissemination of knowledge on preserving and transmitting tangible and intangible cultural heritage.

Comments in detail:

Comment-1: The abstract mentioned the purpose, results, and application significance of the platform development involved in this paper, but there is no clear explanation of the process of platform design and implementation, and no explanation of how the platform integrates with the complex system knowledge mentioned earlier. The author should explain the above two aspects clearly.

Comment-2: The authors provided too many keywords, usually not exceeding 5 in number.

Comment-3: Page 3, Line 101-133. These contents seem to analyse existing research on digital tools, spatial databases, and cultural heritage tool platforms, and are recommended to be placed in the “Related work” section. The Materials and Methods sections generally use concise language to introduce the data and methodological ideas used in the paper.

Comment-4: Page 9, Line 316-327, and Page 10, Line 360-370. These contents (including Figure 3 and Figure 5), in my opinion, belong to the method description and should be included in the Methods section. The Results section should only indicate what kind of results were obtained through research.

Comment-5: Page 11, Line 373-391. The design of the questionnaire on user feedback is also part of the methodology, and it is suggested to be moved to the Methods section.

Comment-6: The Discussion section of the paper is entirely centered on the Heritage for People Platform, and the author describes to the reader the advancements and implications of the platform. However, there is no comparative analysis with previous studies, and it is recommended that the author add differences (improvements) from previous studies in each subsection of the discussion to prove to the reader that the study is truly novel.

Author Response

The authors want to acknowledge the reviewer for his/her time and precious comments. It is believed that

His/her comments contributed to the enhancement of the whole quality of the manuscript.

Comments in detail:

Comment-1: The abstract mentioned the purpose, results, and application significance of the platform development involved in this paper, but there is no clear explanation of the process of platform design and implementation, and no explanation of how the platform integrates with the complex system knowledge mentioned earlier. The author should explain the above two aspects clearly. 

Response-1:  The reviewer has pointed out that the abstract lacks a clear explanation of the platform design and implementation process, as well as how the platform integrates with the complex system knowledge previously mentioned. To address this, we have revised the abstract to explain the platform’s design, highlighting the iterative, user-centered development process and the case-based reasoning methodology. We also clarified how the platform integrates complex system knowledge by linking vernacular strategies to sustainability principles for practical application.

 

Comment-2: The authors provided too many keywords, usually not exceeding 5 in number. 

Response-2:   We have reduced the number of keywords to five, selecting those that most accurately reflect the core themes of the paper.

Comment-3: Page 3, Line 101-133. These contents seem to analyse existing research on digital tools, spatial databases, and cultural heritage tool platforms, and are recommended to be placed in the “Related work” section. The Materials and Methods sections generally use concise language to introduce the data and methodological ideas used in the paper.

Response-3: We agree with the suggestion to move the analysis of existing research on digital tools, spatial databases, and cultural heritage tool platforms to the “Related Work” section. The “Materials and Methods” section is revised to focus solely on introducing the data and methodological approaches used in the study, ensuring concise and clear communication of this information.

 

Comment-4: Page 9, Line 316-327, and Page 10, Line 360-370. These contents (including Figure 3 and Figure 5), in my opinion, belong to the method description and should be included in the Methods section. The Results section should only indicate what kind of results were obtained through research.

Response-4: We appreciate the reviewer's input on this matter. The materials and methods section and the results section have been reorganised so that the contents are clearer. This reorganization ensure that the “Results” section strictly presents the findings of our research, while the methodology is thoroughly described in the appropriate section.

 

Comment-5:  Page 11, Line 373-391. The design of the questionnaire on user feedback is also part of the methodology, and it is suggested to be moved to the Methods section.

Response-5: We concur with the suggestion to move the design of the questionnaire on user feedback to the “Methods” section. This change will help in clearly delineating the methodological aspects of the study from the presentation of results.

 

 The Discussion section of the paper is entirely centered on the Heritage for People Platform, and the author describes to the reader the advancements and implications of the platform. However, there is no comparative analysis with previous studies, and it is recommended that the author add differences (improvements) from previous studies in each subsection of the discussion to prove to the reader that the study is truly novel.

Response-6: The discussion section has been integrated including a critical comparative analysis of previous studies, highlighting differences and improvements that the platform introduces compared to previous similar peer projects.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main scope of the research and of the “Heritage for People Platform” should be better described. In particular should be indicated the possible concrete applications of the platform. Who are potential users and why they should take advantage from it? I suggest to improve this aspect.

A consistent part of sections 2 (lines 142-184) describes the state of the art. Moreover a real “method” section is not present. For example, the study of existing platforms can be considered part of the research method. Method description must be improved and State of the Art section introduced.

Figure 4 must be improved. It is not clearly readable while it describes an important and interesting aspect of the research: the tool and its functionality. It could be enlarged and the different steps better described. This would improve the comprehension of the tool.

 

Author Response

The authors want to acknowledge the reviewer for his/her time and precious comments. We appreciate the constructive feedback provided.

Comment-1: The main scope of the research and of the “Heritage for People Platform” should be better described. In particular should be indicated the possible concrete applications of the platform. Who are potential users and why they should take advantage from it? I suggest to improve this aspect.

Response-1- We have refined the platform's purpose by clearly outlining its specific goals and the challenges it addresses within the heritage and cultural preservation domain (as detailed in the Introduction and Section 3.1). In response to the reviewer’s comments regarding potential users and their motivations for using the platform, we have expanded on this in Section 3.1.2, specifying the target audience and the benefits they can derive from the platform.

Comment-2: A consistent part of sections 2 (lines 142-184) describes the state of the art. Moreover a real “method” section is not present. For example, the study of existing platforms can be considered part of the research method. Method description must be improved and State of the Art section introduced. 

Response-2: We moved the analysis of existing research on digital tools, spatial databases, and cultural heritage tool platforms to the “Related Work” section. The “Materials and Methods” section is revised to focus solely on introducing the data and methodological approaches used in the study, ensuring concise and clear communication of this information. The materials and methods section and the results section have been reorganised so that the contents are described in the appropriate sections.

Comment 3: Figure 4 must be improved. It is not clearly readable while it describes an important and interesting aspect of the research: the tool and its functionality. It could be enlarged and the different steps better described. This would improve the comprehension of the tool. 

Response 3: Figure 4 has been replaced with an updated and more readable version

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting empirical manuscript, but not enough embedded in the scientific structure. My detailed comments:

- the title in my opinion to be rethought by the authors, it does not quite correspond with the content,

- addresses are missing in affiliations,

- There should not be a period (.) after the last keyword,

- the clcuz word "digital" seems too generic, maybe it is better to use "digital twins" or "digital tool",

- the manuscript begins with the scope and objectives, and first there should be an introduction to the topic, references to the literature, the research gap and only the objectives of the authors and their research,

- the purpose and attempt to close the research gap should bulge at the end of the introduction, this is currently not there,

- at the beginning of the second section there is mention of modern technologies VR, AI, GIS .... and where BIM, IoT? I recommend reading: https://doi.org/10.3390/jsan13020019

- What about blockchain? https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-021-00643-9

- for figure 1, do the authors have permission to reprint it?

- figure 3 is completely unreadable, either you need to enlarge the texts or make it an attachment, similarly figure 5,

- the discussion must refer to other literature, otherwise it is speculation,

- the summary must emphasize the contribution of the study to the current state of knowledge and technology, at this point this is not in the content,

- Chapter 6 patents, if it is not there please remove it, 

- the manuscript lacks a statement about the data, if the data was produced or deposited somewhere such a statement must appear in the work, if the data was not in my opinion it should also be noted,

- references are not prepared according to the guidelines of the journal.

My decision is "major revision". After making changes and responding point by point to my comments, the manuscript should pass a second review.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is acceptable, but there are colloquialisms.

Author Response

The authors want to acknowledge the reviewer for his/her time and precious comments. We appreciate the constructive feedback provided. A major revision has been conducted in accordance with the comments above, and we respond point by point to these comments in the resubmission, ensuring all issues are addressed. We are confident that with these changes, the manuscript will be strengthened and more closely aligned with the scientific structure expected in the journal.

Comment 1-  the title in my opinion to be rethought by the authors, it does not quite correspond with the content, 

Response 1- We acknowledge the reviewer's suggestion regarding the title. Upon further review, we agree that the title should better reflect the content of the manuscript. We have revise it to more accurately align with the study's focus and scope, making it more representative of the research conducted.

 

Comment 2: addresses are missing in affiliations, 

Response 2: All addresses are included in the affiliations to comply with the journal's formatting requirements.

 

Comment 3: There should not be a period (.) after the last keyword

Response 3:The period after the last keyword is removed

 

Comment 4: the word "digital" seems too generic, maybe it is better to use "digital twins" or "digital tool"

Response 4: We agree that the term "digital" is too broad. We have revised it to "digital tool” ensuring it aligns more closely with the specific technologies discussed.

 

Comment 5: the manuscript begins with the scope and objectives, and first there should be an introduction to the topic, references to the literature, the research gap and only the objectives of the authors and their research,

Response 5: The introduction has been entirely restructured by commencing  with a general premise on the topic. Subsequently,  references to the literature are cited to ground the subject in its broader field of study while pointing out its general relevance as a research topic. The knowledge gap is identified and a brief explanation of the project’s goals is present  in order to address the issue

 

Comment 6:  the purpose and attempt to close the research gap should bulge at the end of the introduction, this is currently not there.

Response 6: The introduction ends with a summary of the project’s proposed solutions to tackle  the knowledge gap.

 

Comment 7:  at the beginning of the second section there is mention of modern technologies VR, AI, GIS .... and where BIM, IoT? I recommend reading:  https://doi.org/10.3390/jsan13020019 

Response 7: The comment is very pertinent. We have added the mention to BIM and IoT.

 

Comment 8:  What about blockchain?  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-021-00643-9 

Response 8: Also this is pertinent. Added a mention.

 

Comment 9:   for figure 1, do the authors have permission to reprint it?

Response 9: We have the necessary permissions for its reprint fig.1.

 

Comment 10:  figure 3 is completely unreadable, either you need to enlarge the texts or make it an attachment, similarly figure 5, 

Response 10: Figure 3 and 5 have been replaced with updated versions

 

Comment 11:   the discussion must refer to other literature, otherwise it is speculation

Response 11: We agree that the discussion should be grounded in existing literature to avoid speculation. We have revised the discussion section to include comparisons with and references to relevant studies, demonstrating how our research contributes to the field.

 

Comment 12:  the summary must emphasize the contribution of the study to the current state of knowledge and technology, at this point this is not in the content

Response 12: The summary and the introduction are be revised to emphasize the study’s contribution to the current state of knowledge and technology, clearly outlining how our research advances the field.

 

Comment 13: Chapter 6 patents, if it is not there please remove it,

Response 13: We have removed Chapter 6 as suggested by the reviewer.

 

Comment 14: The manuscript lacks a statement about the data, if the data was produced or deposited somewhere such a statement must appear in the work, if the data was not in my opinion it should also be noted,

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. We have stated where the data are deposited (Par.3.2.1)

 

Comment 15: references are not prepared according to the guidelines of the journal. 

Response 15: References have been reviewed and corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors check some small typos in the text after accepting track changes

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed my comments perfectly. Admittedly, I miss a stronger saturation of literature with high IF, but perhaps the authors want to focus on their solution. A minor note: the authors' statements lack a data statement. After editorial and linguistic revisions, the manuscript can be published.